Everything that exists in the universe is 3 dimensional, right down to the tiniest particle. The atom, however, is not 3 dimensional nor are the proton or neutron which each contain 3 quarks. Could these be the extra dimensions called for in string theory and why mathematical equations in quantum mechanics make no sense when combined with those of general relativity. Everything changes when we get down to the atom and I believe this is why. Please comment
Please note that I do not profess to be a physicist. I am merely a person who has enjoyed reading for several years on the subject, most of which is over my head, in my retirement. I am only looking for better answers to some of the things which I don't understand
QUOTE (scrabus44+Aug 2 2011, 08:20 PM)
Please note that I do not profess to be a physicist. I am merely a person who has enjoyed reading for several years on the subject, most of which is over my head, in my retirement. I am only looking for better answers to some of the things which I don't understand
Don't worry nobody is going to confuse you with someone who knows something about natural phenomena.
Don't worry nobody is going to confuse you with someone who knows something about natural phenomena.
I won't call you a snob as you'd probably take that as a compliment. I'll just say you're rude and very narrow minded
I wouldn't call him a snob, either, and I usually find his critiques lame, e.g. (booger picker, etc.).
However, this one was funny!
However, this one was funny!
QUOTE (scrabus44+Jul 25 2011, 05:18 PM)
Everything that exists in the universe is 3 dimensional, right down to the tiniest particle. The atom, however, is not 3 dimensional
STOP.
Read what you wrote.
Try again.
When you contradict yourself, perhaps you are not making yourself understood or perhaps you don't understand what you profess to understand. A scientific theory is a communicable, precise and useful description of the universe or a large related class of phenomena within the universe. You have failed to communicate anything precise or useful. brucep correctly called you out for that. Clearly, you understand English well enough to understand that brucep holds you in utter contempt, somewhere between teenagers who whine that their parents are ruining everything and gangs of organized teenagers who prey on the elderly; therefore I conclude that your failure is one of epistemology and methodology. In short, that ain't science.
STOP.
Read what you wrote.
Try again.
When you contradict yourself, perhaps you are not making yourself understood or perhaps you don't understand what you profess to understand. A scientific theory is a communicable, precise and useful description of the universe or a large related class of phenomena within the universe. You have failed to communicate anything precise or useful. brucep correctly called you out for that. Clearly, you understand English well enough to understand that brucep holds you in utter contempt, somewhere between teenagers who whine that their parents are ruining everything and gangs of organized teenagers who prey on the elderly; therefore I conclude that your failure is one of epistemology and methodology. In short, that ain't science.
What I should have said is everything in the universe 'with the exception of the atom' is 3 dimensional. Every piece of matter, which is made up of atoms is 3 dimensional and when you break the atom down to its smallest particles, they too are 3 dimensional. Count the number of dimensions within the atom and see if that number doesn't agree with the number of dimensions which String Theory says 'must' exist but which can't be explained for certain. Is it not at that level where the math conflicts between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? Until you arrogant eggheads can show me those extra dimensions in String Theory, call me a quack. At least I admit I don't profess to be a physicist. I came on hear to learn not be insulted.
String theory isn't about atoms. Quantum chemistry is about atoms. And the simplest atom is well described by the Schrödinger equation, which says Hydrogen-1 is spherical -- notably 3-dimensional. Where have you heard different?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom
Moreover, we don't even need to rely on theory and indirect evidence, since with a STM we can "feel" the three-dimensionality of individual atoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#Shape_and_size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/atomo.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom
Moreover, we don't even need to rely on theory and indirect evidence, since with a STM we can "feel" the three-dimensionality of individual atoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#Shape_and_size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/atomo.html
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.